User talk:Kb244
Welcome Hello Kb244. Thank you for joining Camerapedia. I hope you like it, stick around, and contribute more. -- Hoary 04:56, 19 May 2007 (EDT) Images Thank you for editing Kodak Retina Ia. However, another user (U. kulick) swiftly came along and changed the image, noting in an SGML comment: :@Kb244: Don't use Karl Blessing's images, take those of the camerapedia image pool!!!! In this case there was no need to replace the good and detailed image!!! If you can offer images for other cameras, please load them up into our Flickr Group camerapedia. I think he overdoes the exclamation points; but that minor matter aside, he's right. If you think that the image you linked to is better (perhaps because it's of a variant that's closer to what's described in the text), and if it is in the public domain or released under GFDL, you can upload it to Flickr and link to that. For details, please see Adding images. But as long as there is any question about the copyright status of the image, please do not upload it. I think that U. kulick would join me in regretting that we have to be so strict about this kind of thing -- but it's not us who writes the relevant copyright and other relevant laws, and we have to be strict. -- Hoary 04:56, 19 May 2007 (EDT) Identity Hello Kb244, It seems from your previous contributions that you are Karl Blessing. This is not so obvious from your user name, and U. Kulick and Hoary thought that you were using an image without permission. Of course, if the image is yours, you are welcome to contribute it. Could you please confirm that Kb244 and Karl Blessing are the same person, so that the sort of quiproquo does not arise any more? Regards, --Rebollo fr 05:18, 19 May 2007 (EDT) : Hello Kb244 : concerning the image that you temporarily installed in page Kodak Retina Ia I'd say it was really not good to place it there as replacement, because there was and is again an image which is as good and even more detailed than yours. The actual image even shows better what you wrote in your additional text. The comment with exclamation marks was made so that you couldn't disregard it if you reentered editing the page. I'm not happy about Hoary moved it to this user talk page. Concerning Rebollo's comment: We have a precedent of deep linking into a contributor's homepage by user Sovietleica on page www.sovietleica.com (Zenit). But the Flickr group camerapedia is our preferred image resource. And user Sovietleica was not asked for a identity confirmation. Résumé: if you edit pages that are already written by others or even just nicely illustrated stubs, think whether what you want to do is a real improvement. Best regards, U. Kulick 07:27, 19 May 2007 (EDT) In Regards to Image and Idenity Hello Everyone Else, I was not aware that it was such a big deal to replace an image, and it appears that the replacement was not the major issue, or the issue of idenity was likely used to justify the objection to the image itself. In either case I am Karl Blessing, I used to have a domain kb244.com and I use the alias often as short version of myself as I have been using it for nearly a decade. I feel that the comments above was an over reaction, and I do not appreciate automatically being blasted as stealing one other's image, especially when I am the contributor of that image and seems a little ungrateful to blast me as such to add to contribute to this community. I was not aware that image placement was supposibly a competition. The image I contributed I felt was much more suitable to both the appearance of the camera and the way it fit into the camerapedia website without the lighting issues and angle of the camera in the original image replaced. Far as my idenity goes, well not sure how one would verify that since I could easily acuse the rest of you of not being who you are. But I'm guessing one simple solution is just to goto karlblessing.com and click on the contact form and just simply ask, is kb244 on Camerapedia the same as Karl Blessing who is a photographer at karlblessing.com. I have instead edited the article in question to add a new section "Other Images", and placed a newly created thumbnail of the image in question to point to the previous location. It is my hope that this will probably keep the placement combatants down. I have plans this weekend to take more pictures in the manner shown previously but in more detailed areas of the camera, and contribute them under the "other images" section by the end of this weekend. It was merely my opinion that the image I replaced did not do the camera much justice and did not fit well within the web design and I thought that a cleaner image somewhat equally in representation would suit better. So I apologize of course if someone took this as being an offending action. Sincerely Karl Blessing ::Hello Karl ::I'm sorry for having this discussion as welcome for you. What I reason about is that we should have a manner of good practice when trying to improve an already existing article. And that means to esteem the work that others already did. There are pages with nice structured text and images but also stub pages with just links or images. If the links are helpful or the images are good or acceptable for use as rare documents, take them over in the concept of the page you want to make of such an article. The image you wanted to install in the Retina Ia page is not as detailed as the one we have now. The one we have now once replaced an image of mine. So there is obviously no competition between your or my picture. What you may not know is that the Flickr image pages offer a button "All sizes". So if you follow the link given by a Flickr image in camerapedia you get to the Flickr page were it has its original place. In most cases you get access to image versions in lower or higher resolution. So linking back to the original Flickr page is not just for copyright reasons but for offering more convenience seeing the images. In the case of the Retina Ia image you'll see much more details than your image shows. Cleaner looking? What does than mean if not that the Flickr image looks cleaner. Best regards, Uwe U. Kulick 08:41, 19 May 2007 (EDT) :Hello Karl, :Nobody is accusing you of pretending that you are not who you are. :Some Camerapedia members saw a user account called Kb244 adding an image belonging to Karl Blessing. Their reaction was to think that someone was making unauthorized use of the image (something that happens regularly and needs to be controlled). They acted to protect your copyrights, this is way better than doing nothing. :Now that you have told us that you are Karl Blessing, there is no reason to doubt this, but you must admit that this was not obvious in the first place: the fact that you are using Kb244 as a nickname for a decade is of course ignored by all the other people here. The main reason to use Flickr as the image source for Camerapedia is to avoid this sort of embarrassing situations: if someone is adding a stolen image from his Flickr account, he is engaging his responsibility as a Flickr member and the Camerapedia admins can assume good faith, something we cannot do if the image is hardlinked from another site. :Replacement of an image by another is of course accepted when justified. In the present case, I agree that your image is better and integrates better in a white background page. Maybe the two images can live in the page at different locations, or the original image can be suppressed. :Please note however that the suppression of another contributor's picture can hurt his feelings, in that case it is better to add a small note in the talk page, explaining the change. This way other contributors can discuss the change if they feel the need to do so. For example Uwe would have had an occasion to explain that the previous image could be enlarged in Flickr, something that is not obvious for a newcomer. This is why I believe that the two images can coexist. :I am sorry for these inconvenients: some precautions are necessary for a collaborative website, as opposed to one's own homepage. :In any case, your contribution is appreciated and new pictures of the camera will be welcome, :Regards, --Rebollo fr 08:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT) Conclusion of Confusion :P Hello again everyone, First off I did not realize that the original image linked was also viewable at a higher resolution than shown, which is quite understandable of it's value now. I of course can provide higher resolutions as well using zoomify on my website (which I have used in the past particularly for eBay listings), there just didn't seem to be a demand for it. But least I can understand now why such and such had a value as a contribution. I don't mean to be so rash, but it does catch me off gaurd when someone comes right out and tells me I should not do something rather than a little more cautious approach to addressing the situation. I'm primarily a webdeveloper and a photographer, and in my current employment I use both quite often especially for sales of old cameras for my employer so I'm very web-oriented in terms of presenting camera's in their best appearance. I can come off as being a bit conceited at times when trying to improve something. It's typically tradition for me to get a good studio style shot of any new cameras I get as you can pretty much see from the toys gallery on my website (any of which image I can contribute upon request). But least this user page got off to an exciting start... I'm still getting used to the hows in terms of the markup and such on this site, or policies for that matter, such as how I added "Other Images", I do not know if it needs to have courtesy of placed there, I pretty much just cut/pasted what another user modified to my image on the Olympus pen article assuming that was the correct format. Sincerely Karl Blessing